ASP.NET MVC, Web API, Razor and Open Source(weblogs.asp.net)
weblogs.asp.net
ASP.NET MVC, Web API, Razor and Open Source
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mvc-web-api-razor-and-open-source.aspx
21 comments
> Microsoft announcing they'd make JSON.NET, a third party JSON library, the default JSON serializer over their home-grown DataContractJsonSerializer in the next version of ASP.NET MVC
Finally! For those who haven't used it, DataContractJsonSerializer has the most absurd way of serialising dictionaries into JSON. Rather than producing {"k1": "v1", "k2": "v2"} it produces [{"Key": "k1", "Value": "v1"}, {"Key":"k2", "Value": "v2"}]
Finally! For those who haven't used it, DataContractJsonSerializer has the most absurd way of serialising dictionaries into JSON. Rather than producing {"k1": "v1", "k2": "v2"} it produces [{"Key": "k1", "Value": "v1"}, {"Key":"k2", "Value": "v2"}]
> DataContractJsonSerializer has the most absurd way of serialising dictionaries into JSON.
DataContractJsonSerializer is a hack that is built on top of an XML parser.
For the people who are unfamiliar with .NET there is a comparison of Json.NET to Microsoft's two JSON serializers here:
http://json.codeplex.com/ <- Json.NET homepage
DataContractJsonSerializer is a hack that is built on top of an XML parser.
For the people who are unfamiliar with .NET there is a comparison of Json.NET to Microsoft's two JSON serializers here:
http://json.codeplex.com/ <- Json.NET homepage
For a big old school company like Microsoft to accept patches from the community is huge. I always grudgingly accepted there must be some sort of commercial risk ("Microsoft used my code and made 10 million dollars, now I'm going to sue them") holding them back.
Does anybody have insight on this topic? I'm currently building something that would benefit greatly from user contributions of code, but I'm wary about the legal implications (the project will be a commercial site, and while I have no problem publishing their code if I choose to integrate it into my site to enhance the user experience, I have no interest in publishing the core code for the rest of the site).
Does anybody have insight on this topic? I'm currently building something that would benefit greatly from user contributions of code, but I'm wary about the legal implications (the project will be a commercial site, and while I have no problem publishing their code if I choose to integrate it into my site to enhance the user experience, I have no interest in publishing the core code for the rest of the site).
I'd pay to have a fully compatible .NET stack on OSX/Linux. Most of our backend code is C#; outside of having to use Windows I've actually found it very pleasant to work with. No need for a full MSVS port, just a working VM/library and build tools (+ maybe an IntelliSense daemon to plug into editors). It'd be interesting to see MS get back to their roots this way.
I'm completely with you: I absolutely love .NET, but I really wish that I could write server-side components for and on OS X or Linux. Mono's getting less painful for server-side work, for what it's worth; if you have light needs, or can easily restart the service on a regular basis, you may find it usable. But I'd definitely avoid deploying an MVC 3 app.
> if you have light needs, or can easily restart the service on a regular basis, you may find it usable. But I'd definitely avoid deploying an MVC 3 app
Can you further elaborate on that one? Because that's exactly what I would like to do.
Can you further elaborate on that one? Because that's exactly what I would like to do.
Mono had two issues we hit in production for server processes:
1. The GC was poor. There's actually a couple of pieces to this one: it's non-compacting, so your app gradually slows down; and (because it's Boehm) it has to guess at what's a pointer, and sadly just doesn't do a good job, so you gradually leak RAM through no fault of your own. The new GC, which I think is called SGen, is a precise collector, so I assume that it fixes the memory leaks, but it's still non-compacting, meaning you're probably going to want to restart the process every once and awhile to prevent serious heap fragmentation.
2. Mono gradually became unstable the longer it ran. This grew exponentially worse as you added threads.
Both of these issues can be circumvented by having multiple processes in a load-balanced configuration and simply restarting them every once and awhile. Heck, IIS does that with App Pool recycling anyway, and it doesn't have these issues.
The FogBugz team still uses Mono to host FogBugz on Unix systems, I believe by going the reboot-every-so-often route, so I assume they've found ways of living with the above two constraints.
1. The GC was poor. There's actually a couple of pieces to this one: it's non-compacting, so your app gradually slows down; and (because it's Boehm) it has to guess at what's a pointer, and sadly just doesn't do a good job, so you gradually leak RAM through no fault of your own. The new GC, which I think is called SGen, is a precise collector, so I assume that it fixes the memory leaks, but it's still non-compacting, meaning you're probably going to want to restart the process every once and awhile to prevent serious heap fragmentation.
2. Mono gradually became unstable the longer it ran. This grew exponentially worse as you added threads.
Both of these issues can be circumvented by having multiple processes in a load-balanced configuration and simply restarting them every once and awhile. Heck, IIS does that with App Pool recycling anyway, and it doesn't have these issues.
The FogBugz team still uses Mono to host FogBugz on Unix systems, I believe by going the reboot-every-so-often route, so I assume they've found ways of living with the above two constraints.
Remember that Mono is open source and we'd LOVE to get patches to improve it.
Bug reports also help!
In the meantime, we're working hard to constantly be improving Mono, but the best way to improve free/open source software is to get involved.
Bug reports also help!
In the meantime, we're working hard to constantly be improving Mono, but the best way to improve free/open source software is to get involved.
How long ago did you experience those issues? I still have some time to go until I launch whatever it is I decide to build. I hope the Mono team finds a solution for them eventually.
[deleted]
I think .NET is great, and most of my career has been working in C#, but targeting Windows and developing on Windows is just a bummer.
mono
Also worthy to note that Microsoft's BizSpark program provides free production access to Microsoft tools and products-- not Express editions but versions like Visual Studio Ultimate, SQL Server Enterprise, Windows Server Enterprise, etc. You also get a couple thousand free hours on Azure if you want to go that route. For training you also get three months of Pluralsight which brings you up to speed on the relevant tools and platforms.
I feel it's a really good time to be a Microsoft developer. The products are really solid, the skills are in demand and the barrier to entry is pretty much gone.
I realize after writing the above I come off as a big time evangelist, but this is only because I have had such a good experience for the last decade building on their platforms. Never regretted going all in other than sometime feeling like a black sheep on this site. Good to know there are a lot of other .Net folk on this site. ;)
I feel it's a really good time to be a Microsoft developer. The products are really solid, the skills are in demand and the barrier to entry is pretty much gone.
I realize after writing the above I come off as a big time evangelist, but this is only because I have had such a good experience for the last decade building on their platforms. Never regretted going all in other than sometime feeling like a black sheep on this site. Good to know there are a lot of other .Net folk on this site. ;)
Yep. Our startup has been in the program for a little under 3 years now. It is great!
Edit - May I ask why the downvote? Would you like more information on my experience or something? I only attempted to validate that this is a real program with real companies going through it.
Edit - May I ask why the downvote? Would you like more information on my experience or something? I only attempted to validate that this is a real program with real companies going through it.
Your product-name dropping skills are unparalleled.
Wait until the bill comes.
After three years, you get to keep some production licenses as well as all the software you downloaded for free. You get four Windows Servers and two SQL Servers. This really is a great program. You can read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/About/Graduation.aspx
Yeah, there's a common misconception that there's a big bill coming at the end. There isn't - you get to keep the software you used during the 3 years for no charge and you get discounts if you need to buy more.
Uh, there is a big bill coming at the end. You need to keep your system running, even though you now have to pay for licenses, don't you?
When building your system during BizSpark, you are unlikely to make architectural choices with respect to software licenses, because they are free. Then you graduate, and you're probably looking at a system that uses way more licenses than it would have if you had to optimize around that parameter from the get go.
BizSpark is an excellent move by Microsoft, and likely is helpful for folks starting out who already know the .NET stack. But I'm very skeptical that working in the Microsoft stack offers such a technical advantage that it is worth the risk that your business is not going to be in a position to suddenly have its operational costs bloated by software licenses by some arbitrary date determined by Microsoft.
When building your system during BizSpark, you are unlikely to make architectural choices with respect to software licenses, because they are free. Then you graduate, and you're probably looking at a system that uses way more licenses than it would have if you had to optimize around that parameter from the get go.
BizSpark is an excellent move by Microsoft, and likely is helpful for folks starting out who already know the .NET stack. But I'm very skeptical that working in the Microsoft stack offers such a technical advantage that it is worth the risk that your business is not going to be in a position to suddenly have its operational costs bloated by software licenses by some arbitrary date determined by Microsoft.
Yes and no. The point is that you're not retroactively billed for licenses you got while in the program. Believe it or not, a lot of people seem to think that it's just a delayed payment program. Yes, if you're designing a system that's going to require more than 6 servers you might end up paying for a license. Windows Web Server runs ~$470. But for many businesses, if you're using >6 servers you're likely going to be deploying to some cloud hosting solution, or possibly using a shared hosting service (which would include licenses).
It's a tired example, but StackOverflow really is an example of a startup that got a lot done with very few devs or servers and launched a very successful business. Also key is that you can mix and match technologies as you want, something that the StackOverflow used very intelligently (e.g. Microsoft server fronted by non-Microsoft reverse proxy, etc.).
It's a tired example, but StackOverflow really is an example of a startup that got a lot done with very few devs or servers and launched a very successful business. Also key is that you can mix and match technologies as you want, something that the StackOverflow used very intelligently (e.g. Microsoft server fronted by non-Microsoft reverse proxy, etc.).
> if you're designing a system that's going to require more than 6 servers you might end up paying for a license
Even if you don't have to pay for the first licenses, you'll pay for subsequent upgrades. And designing for the Microsoft makes it harder to migrate to anything else - that's probably why Microsoft invented BizSpark in the first place.
Stackoverflow shows you can get a very significant audience on a half-Microsoft stack, but they have a lot of interesting (as in "different from the ones I have") server management problems because of that. That makes their podcasts much more worth listening.
Even if you don't have to pay for the first licenses, you'll pay for subsequent upgrades. And designing for the Microsoft makes it harder to migrate to anything else - that's probably why Microsoft invented BizSpark in the first place.
Stackoverflow shows you can get a very significant audience on a half-Microsoft stack, but they have a lot of interesting (as in "different from the ones I have") server management problems because of that. That makes their podcasts much more worth listening.
Not to mention, most startups either fail in 3 years or (hopefully) be in a position to pay for the extra servers.
It would be interesting to measure if the odds of failure somehow correlate with chosen technology stack.
Considering that most startups fail for reasons other than technical (running out of money, lack of traction, founders moving on) I don't think any correlation will be that meaningful. It will be interesting see a plot of the type of the startup (social, b2b, retail etc) versus the stack though :)
I am not so sure technology stack is entirely unrelated to failure rate. The stack you pick may influence iteration speed, hosting options, developer availability, uptime, reliability, security and costs.
Twitter would have failed had their scalability problems persisted.
In fact, I remember "Six Degrees". It was more or less Facebook, but in the late 90's. IIRC, they ran Cold Fusion on Windows.
Twitter would have failed had their scalability problems persisted.
In fact, I remember "Six Degrees". It was more or less Facebook, but in the late 90's. IIRC, they ran Cold Fusion on Windows.
Some say that Friendster failed mainly due to scaling issues.
http://highscalability.com/blog/2007/11/13/friendster-lost-l...
You have a valid point there :)
Another consideration is that if you do succeed, you can partner with MS, which provides some cost savings with MSDN licenses. At my last start-up, we authored several white papers about our solution and how it meshed with MS's toolset, and we received significant discounts with licensing.
The most expensive part of a software project is the people, not the licenses. People who pay for MS believe that they're saving money in the long run.
The increased engineering burden of having to consider software license costs when designing systems hardly seems worth it. Imagine if you had to pay a per-node fee for your Hadoop cluster? How much extra effort would be put into optimizing the individual performance of each node and job if there were an additional 50% per-node cost to run it?
But you already go through the exercise; you compare the cost of adding a server versus the cost of engineering a solution. The only difference is server cost is different. My time's worth $200/hr, what's yours?
Hence the use of the phrase "extra effort." In a theoretical world where Microsoft offered "Microsoft Map Reduce" as a Microsoft-sanctioned way to run map reduce jobs, one could imagine the licensing cost for a single box could well exceed the cost of hardware, ops, etc, if SQL server license fees are any indication. How much extra engineering effort does this translate into? Is it worth it?
The program lasts for three years. Something to consider, sure, but three years can be a long time in startup-land.
[deleted]
> start accepting community developed features into their platform
Guthrie has done a great job of making developers on the Windows platform feel included and involved. While Microsoft's product offerings slip, Guthrie continues to grow the community of developers, maybe not in quantity but most certainly in quality. Before Guthrie, an offering like today's announcement never would have seen the light of day.
Guthrie has done a great job of making developers on the Windows platform feel included and involved. While Microsoft's product offerings slip, Guthrie continues to grow the community of developers, maybe not in quantity but most certainly in quality. Before Guthrie, an offering like today's announcement never would have seen the light of day.
I'm not too familiar with what Guthrie has done for the .NET community, but Hanselman is a famous proponent of open source and making .NET as fun to code in as ruby and python. His coming to MS has changed the way I look at the .NET stack.
And let's not forget Phil Haack (http://haacked.com), who is now working at GitHub. He used to be the program manager at Microsoft for ASP.NET MVC, the first part of the ASP.NET framework to be released under an open source license.
Yeah ScottH has done a great job. ScottG hired him, plus a bunch of other community advocates over the past few years. Some have since moved on, but MS really did a great job of listening to devs who build on MS platforms.
Microsoft product offerings slip how? What I see is outstanding products being delivered such as Windows Azure, Windows Server 8, SQL Server 2012, System Center 2012.
More on the consumer side, not the data center.
I'm a long time Java developer who recently move to .NET. What I love about Java when it comes to this particular issue: open source, is how easy it is to get the source code, documentation, and to navigate around given 2 assumptions:
1) You're using Maven + Eclipse (haven't tried in other IDE)
2) The source code is available (in most cases, they are) in Maven repository
Here's a simple example: I'm using Spring and Guava and occasionally I'd like to navigate to the method I use. All I have to do is hit F3 on the method call and Maven will download the source code JAR (and the documentation JAR as well) and voila: I can easily see the source code and navigate around. Ditto with the dependency of the dependency.
I have to say that Maven + Eclipse provide massive productivity increase for me and my team.
Now, I did .NET in the past briefly back when .NET was in 2.0/3.0 era. I recalled it wasn't obvious how to associate even the core .NET library (Collections, etc) via VS.NET.
How easy it is to achieve a similar workflow in .NET these days?
1) You're using Maven + Eclipse (haven't tried in other IDE)
2) The source code is available (in most cases, they are) in Maven repository
Here's a simple example: I'm using Spring and Guava and occasionally I'd like to navigate to the method I use. All I have to do is hit F3 on the method call and Maven will download the source code JAR (and the documentation JAR as well) and voila: I can easily see the source code and navigate around. Ditto with the dependency of the dependency.
I have to say that Maven + Eclipse provide massive productivity increase for me and my team.
Now, I did .NET in the past briefly back when .NET was in 2.0/3.0 era. I recalled it wasn't obvious how to associate even the core .NET library (Collections, etc) via VS.NET.
How easy it is to achieve a similar workflow in .NET these days?
Resharper can do the same: http://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/
ReSharper can download source code over the internet or do I have to setup things manually? put them in the right place, etc?
You don't need ReSharper, you can step into the core .Net libs from Visual Studio and it will download what's required.
If you want to step into the source code of other projects however, I don't think that scenario is handled yet. Perhaps a feature to be added to NuGet.
If you want to step into the source code of other projects however, I don't think that scenario is handled yet. Perhaps a feature to be added to NuGet.
Its automatic. If it can't get the source, it will use its built in decompiler, and produce surprisingly readable source anyway (I force it to this mode by default, due to a flaky internet connection).
How does ReSharper managed to locate the 3rd-party source code?
Does ReSharper have their own source repository or some sort?
Does ReSharper have their own source repository or some sort?
As the parent listed, Resharper by default will download MS sources for BCL. For a third party, it will show the decompiled source.
I would consider paying for .net if it received first class treatment on Linux. As someone who has lived through the pain of hosting apps on Windows, I just refuse to do it in the future. I'd love to see Microsoft bring Mono into the fold and truly bring it to the level of the Windows .net implementation.
I used the .net stack for 8 years. But, I wouldn't use the platform for a startup or my own projects. I don't want to be locked into the Windows platform. Mainly, because of licensing fees and just a general preference for the Linux shell and its scripting environment.
The open source community isn't very strong so there aren't as many options for a lot of things, and the community has relied on Microsoft to provide most of the tools and libraries.
Also, while C# is a nice language, I don't find it that different that it compels me to use it over other options available elsewhere. Personally, I find F# to be a much more compelling product.
The open source community isn't very strong so there aren't as many options for a lot of things, and the community has relied on Microsoft to provide most of the tools and libraries.
Also, while C# is a nice language, I don't find it that different that it compels me to use it over other options available elsewhere. Personally, I find F# to be a much more compelling product.
What part of hosting apps on Windows was painful to you? I actually prefer to host my apps in Windows when I'm able and the technology stack supports it. I don't need to set up new apps often, but when I do, it's many orders of magnitude faster for me to get an app running on Windows vs. Linux.
Linux works great as a server OS once I get everything set up and configured correctly. I never need to think about it again. However, I dread having to set things up on a new Linux machine. There's always some hardware that doesn't install correctly or some config file that needs twiddling. Sometimes it takes an odd sequence of commands that needs to be run in just the right order to get things going. Invariably I waste hours on the internet searching forums every time I do this, getting more and more frustrated the whole time.
As far as Windows hosting goes, I find IIS 7 to be much easier to set up and customize than Apache in terms of hosting web applications. I find the uptime of Windows Server boxes to be functionally equivalent to their Linux counterparts. I also find it's much easier to administrate large groups of Windows servers because of the nice tooling. Things like Active Directory, SMS and SCOM make things pretty easy.
Linux works great as a server OS once I get everything set up and configured correctly. I never need to think about it again. However, I dread having to set things up on a new Linux machine. There's always some hardware that doesn't install correctly or some config file that needs twiddling. Sometimes it takes an odd sequence of commands that needs to be run in just the right order to get things going. Invariably I waste hours on the internet searching forums every time I do this, getting more and more frustrated the whole time.
As far as Windows hosting goes, I find IIS 7 to be much easier to set up and customize than Apache in terms of hosting web applications. I find the uptime of Windows Server boxes to be functionally equivalent to their Linux counterparts. I also find it's much easier to administrate large groups of Windows servers because of the nice tooling. Things like Active Directory, SMS and SCOM make things pretty easy.
I currently run a company (on the IT side) with 100+ servers...a healthy mix of both Windows and Linux. To write-up the benefits I see of Linux over Windows would take a fairly long blog post...perhaps I'll do that soon. However, I will say that the last time I had a Linux hardware problem which wasn't related to a display driver issue (and in other words, not on the server) was in 2006. Our Linux servers are reliable, easily configured (admittedly....we know what we're doing) and have very high up times. Contrast that with our Windows servers which at this point we've had to resort to weekly reboot Windows to keep them performing.
Personally, I also find it much easier to find help online with Linux when things do go wrong...and that Microsoft (wisely) makes the whole experience very painful unless you're willing to pony up for their more expensive "tiers" of software. As an example, even though DFS-R is included in Windows Server, try managing a real, live deployment given what you're provided with just Server. Unless you purchase SCOM, your will fail.
Personally, I also find it much easier to find help online with Linux when things do go wrong...and that Microsoft (wisely) makes the whole experience very painful unless you're willing to pony up for their more expensive "tiers" of software. As an example, even though DFS-R is included in Windows Server, try managing a real, live deployment given what you're provided with just Server. Unless you purchase SCOM, your will fail.
That said, Microsoft got one thing very right: active directory. If someone were to develop a similar solution which could manage both platforms, I'd buy it tomorrow.
Identity Management and SSO are two area that once one can install them successfully, that's pretty much mark the point of no return :D.
Consultants love these kind of projects!
Consultants love these kind of projects!
> I dread having to set things up on a new Linux machine
That's what Puppet, Chef, package management and a host of other tools such as virtual machine images and unattended installs are for.
> There's always some hardware that doesn't install correctly
Most server-grade hardware you buy from reputable sources is exquisitely Linux-compatible. I never had any problem with that.
> it takes an odd sequence of commands that needs to be run in just the right order to get things going
This indicates you are deploying servers without really understanding what you are doing. Your phrase evokes a series of spells that have to be cast in order to conjure the proper demons. Unix machines simply don't work like that - there is no magic.
> Invariably I waste hours on the internet searching forums every time I do this
Buy a good book, read and understand the documentation of the software you use. Hire an experienced consultant to teach you and your team, if needed.
When you understand what you are doing, it is really easy. Every piece is open to inspection and all you need to do is look inside.
> I find IIS 7 to be much easier to set up and customize than Apache in terms of hosting web applications.
Until you need to do something the GUI doesn't allow you to do.
> I also find it's much easier to administrate large groups of Windows servers because of the nice tooling
The tooling is there - you just need to learn it. We use Puppet where I work and we use it to manage our server fleet. Works as intended.
That's what Puppet, Chef, package management and a host of other tools such as virtual machine images and unattended installs are for.
> There's always some hardware that doesn't install correctly
Most server-grade hardware you buy from reputable sources is exquisitely Linux-compatible. I never had any problem with that.
> it takes an odd sequence of commands that needs to be run in just the right order to get things going
This indicates you are deploying servers without really understanding what you are doing. Your phrase evokes a series of spells that have to be cast in order to conjure the proper demons. Unix machines simply don't work like that - there is no magic.
> Invariably I waste hours on the internet searching forums every time I do this
Buy a good book, read and understand the documentation of the software you use. Hire an experienced consultant to teach you and your team, if needed.
When you understand what you are doing, it is really easy. Every piece is open to inspection and all you need to do is look inside.
> I find IIS 7 to be much easier to set up and customize than Apache in terms of hosting web applications.
Until you need to do something the GUI doesn't allow you to do.
> I also find it's much easier to administrate large groups of Windows servers because of the nice tooling
The tooling is there - you just need to learn it. We use Puppet where I work and we use it to manage our server fleet. Works as intended.
You're totally right. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm not a sysadmin by trade. I've had the misfortune of having to deal with sysadmin work because I was the only one willing to dive in. So you mention Puppet, Chef, the distro's package manager of choice. These are all great tools but they have a learning curve. My point was that hosting apps on MS requires much less in the way of configuration and learning. You can just get things working.
Indeed, but it's harder to automate. And automating tests is very important.
Some test cycles here involve the automated deployment of VMs based on machine templates that are then configured using Puppet. If we were to do that with Windows, those tests would never run.
Some test cycles here involve the automated deployment of VMs based on machine templates that are then configured using Puppet. If we were to do that with Windows, those tests would never run.
You can totally automate the deployment of windows machines. Maybe what you suggested the other guy did for linux you should do for windows.
What would be the automated testing tool in this case?
Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying (and on re-reading I'm still not entirely sure). Are you saying you chose a tool that doesn't work on windows and those tests would never run because of the tool you chose? Or are you saying that automating the deployment of VMs based on machine templates for testing is not possible in windows (hence "those tests would never run"). Reading your parent comment re: automated provisioning and configuration of virtual machine images - windows has all this. You suggest that people learn linux better, but seem unwilling to do the same for windows.
No. I chose the tool because it did what I wanted it to. It was implied there are automated tools that, say, upon an SCM push with a given tag, can instantiate Windows VMs, deploy and test the app with no manual intervention and report any issues encountered. I never did that and I'm curious about how would you do it.
I imagine a combination of Buildbot and Microsoft's VM container could do it and be automated with a PowerShell script, but I'm not very sure how. Has anyone done something similar to this?
I imagine a combination of Buildbot and Microsoft's VM container could do it and be automated with a PowerShell script, but I'm not very sure how. Has anyone done something similar to this?
Sometimes it takes an odd sequence of commands that needs to be run in just the right order to get things going. Invariably I waste hours on the internet searching forums every time I do this, getting more and more frustrated the whole time.
I have found this to be the case for any system that I've had to deal with for a decent amount of time. Simply change odd sequence of commands to odd registry changes (or xml files in IIS), or click these random guis and see if it works. One thing I like about the linux CLI though is that generally once I find the command it really does work.
I have found this to be the case for any system that I've had to deal with for a decent amount of time. Simply change odd sequence of commands to odd registry changes (or xml files in IIS), or click these random guis and see if it works. One thing I like about the linux CLI though is that generally once I find the command it really does work.
You have to be careful with magical thinking. There is a reason why your commands failed when you changed the order and, as a sysadmin, you need to know why.
Usually, it's obvious once you understand what you are doing.
Usually, it's easy to understand what you are doing.
Usually, it's obvious once you understand what you are doing.
Usually, it's easy to understand what you are doing.
There are a couple use cases:
1) applications where the OS is a commodity - abstraction layer to IO (disk, network). MS solution is their PAAS (which is expensive).
2) existing libraries/services that aren't available on Win32 where it is hard to justify another server license just for .NET - this factors in to where I work; some code can't be .NET as there is already a Linux server in the setup. We've ended up with 80% dotnet and 20% python
3) most companies loathe mixing server OSs; some shops have fallen into the MS camp and others the FOSS camp
4) The proof that they aren't going to cannibalize existing OS/SQL License sales is in your comment
What will be interesting to see is how well Microsoft acts as a steward of the project. I can't count how many bugs I've seen on Microsoft Connect sit untouched for years.
Assuming they're not being fixed due to lack of development resources, perhaps this will help. If it's any other reason, including test resources, management resources, or overall project priorities - a move like this is unlikely to be significant.
If we're just trading a list of ignored bug reports for a list of ignored pull requests, it'd be difficult to muster much excitement.
Assuming they're not being fixed due to lack of development resources, perhaps this will help. If it's any other reason, including test resources, management resources, or overall project priorities - a move like this is unlikely to be significant.
If we're just trading a list of ignored bug reports for a list of ignored pull requests, it'd be difficult to muster much excitement.
This is really great news. Open sourcing Razor means that it can be shipped with Mono, so the awkward getting-razor-working-with-mono rituals won't be necessary in the future.
Indeed - in fact they reached out to Miguel to submit a pull request. :-]
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ASPNETMVC4ASPNETWebAPIAndASPNE...
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ASPNETMVC4ASPNETWebAPIAndASPNE...
I wish they'd open-source WPF, so at least if they won't fix the performance issues with it I could fix them myself (or at least coerce someone with enough skill to fix them for me).
I had a hell of a time trying to actually use the ASP.Net MVC sourcecode on a project a while ago. The problem was that while my own project compiled fine, many of the dependencies I was using were built against a signed version of the ASP.NET MVC DLL. Since the version of the DLL I was using wasn't signed (with Microsoft's key), those dependencies wouldn't work against the version I was compiling. If you compile everything from source, this isn't a problem, but I had a number of dependencies that had been distributed as DLLs, and for reasons now obscure to me (but likely due to time pressures), I wasn't able to replace all those dependencies with source.
I guess the moral of the story is that if you're in .Net land and want to take advantage of this, make sure you do everything with source from the get-go.
I guess the moral of the story is that if you're in .Net land and want to take advantage of this, make sure you do everything with source from the get-go.
I've been strictly in management for a few years now, but I like to lead from the front, i.e. know the technology. It would be painful to trade in C# for Java and VS for Eclipse. Today I took a quick look at Scala and Clojure. I think F# for either of those is also not a good trade. There are a lot of things MS does right. The more MS opens up their technology, the better.
That is strange. I'm the other way around: it is painful for me and my team to switch Java/Eclipse/Maven to C#/VS.NET/NuGET since NuGET isn't even close to Maven.
Not to mention we have to deal with licensing, buying software tools, etc while in Java land almost all the high quality tools are free, easy to download, easy to install.
Setting up a new machine is a breeze with SVN/GIT + Maven. A breeze.
Not to mention we have to deal with licensing, buying software tools, etc while in Java land almost all the high quality tools are free, easy to download, easy to install.
Setting up a new machine is a breeze with SVN/GIT + Maven. A breeze.
NuGet vs Maven seems like a small issue when compared to VS vs Eclipse or even C# vs Java. In the latter two, MS wins hands down. I can cope with NuGet.
With Eclipse, 99% I don't need a mouse to refactor, navigate, build, run unit-tests within Eclipse or outside, and packaged a rather large codebase and its dependencies (3rd-parties or not) and Maven contributes to that significant productivity gain as well.
Eclipse recently also introduced an App-Store clone to download plugins and so far I haven't had the need to hunt down plugins from the world wide web (except for the exotic ones).
Granted I'm new with VS.NET, I'm guessing that will not be the case. Somehow I'm probably still a long way to learn how to utilize VS.NET to the same level of productivity with Eclipse... and even longer time requires to surpass it...
Eclipse recently also introduced an App-Store clone to download plugins and so far I haven't had the need to hunt down plugins from the world wide web (except for the exotic ones).
Granted I'm new with VS.NET, I'm guessing that will not be the case. Somehow I'm probably still a long way to learn how to utilize VS.NET to the same level of productivity with Eclipse... and even longer time requires to surpass it...
Visual Studio has a pretty great "app store"-like extension gallery with both free and commercial extensions. VS is pretty customizable, and just like with Eclipse, the productivity gains are well worth the time it takes to become intimately familiar with your IDE.
If your entire complaint is that you want short-cut keys then look into the Tools | Options | Keyboard configuration. I find raw VS.NET pretty lame in terms of Intellisense, no "jump to file" shortcut, etc. so installing Resharper is a necessity for productivity. But at that point everything is indeed keyboard driven.
VS2010 has "Navigate to" on ctrl-, which is better than jump to file. It's jump to anything, type a class name, a method, a filename, a partial filename, partial anything, and it will match what you write against everything in your solution. It's really powerful and I don't click around in the source tree at all anymore.
While a vast improvement on the past, "Navigate to" doesn't find stuff intelligently like Resharper's jump... e.g. if I have a file "LabListView", I can type "llv" in the "go to" window and it'll be highlighted (I could type any combination of characters but I tend to use the capitalised letters). VS2010 just shows an empty list when I do that -- I have to type a complete partial name.
I could also be imagining this, but I have the feeling Resharper remembers which files are related when I select them from this list because if there's more than 1 match it almost always seems to have the right one at the top of the list based on my current context.
I could also be imagining this, but I have the feeling Resharper remembers which files are related when I select them from this list because if there's more than 1 match it almost always seems to have the right one at the top of the list based on my current context.
FYI, Eclipse also does partial the way Resharper does out-of-the-box: semi-partial and abbreviation.
I believe Eclipse also does "best match based on previously opened files" (sort of heuristic/guessing) just like you guessed the way Resharper does it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Resharper added Eclipse's features that are missing from VS.NET being that JetBrain makes IntelliJ that competes with Eclipse.
Of course the best part of Eclipse is that it's free and you get everything :)
I believe Eclipse also does "best match based on previously opened files" (sort of heuristic/guessing) just like you guessed the way Resharper does it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Resharper added Eclipse's features that are missing from VS.NET being that JetBrain makes IntelliJ that competes with Eclipse.
Of course the best part of Eclipse is that it's free and you get everything :)
Just to add to this so that people stop dissing Eclipse; it also has these features.
Eclipse OOB XML editor also has great navigation features such as jump to definition of complex type, jump to class file, jump to xsd, handy if you need to navigate WSDL or web.xml (similar to web.config).
Eclipse OOB XML editor also has great navigation features such as jump to definition of complex type, jump to class file, jump to xsd, handy if you need to navigate WSDL or web.xml (similar to web.config).
I'm not sure where in my post that I complained too much other than showing that Eclipse and Java are as much as productive (and even more) to VS and C#.
Don't want to get into a silly argument, but while you are right that VS beats eclipse, IntelliJ IDEa absolutely spanks VS. IMO jetbrains is hands down the best dev tools company around nowadays
Yeah, having recently moved from doing .net (and thus VS) to java/groovy/scala with Intellij I have to agree. Intellij is an amazing IDE.
I don't have a lot of experience with ReSharper in VS, but I would assume it brings over a lot of the IDEA features to VS?
I don't have a lot of experience with ReSharper in VS, but I would assume it brings over a lot of the IDEA features to VS?
You don't like Scala, Clojure, (after only looking at it today) or F#, and you think you 'know the technology'? That's not at all surprising coming from an MS supporter.
Looking for some HN insight here. I'm still a college student interested in startups. However, microsoft products really don't excite me. Can someone explain the benefits of C# to a Ruby on Rails coder?
Good parts: C#, and the entire .NET stack, completely skewers Ruby from a performance perspective, while not putting your coding in a straight jacket like Java does. You'll also find what in my opinion are vastly more powerful debugging and profiling tools, awesome threading support (be sure to check out both C# 4.5's async/await keywords and the existing Rx library at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/gg577609), better versioning, better IDEs if you're into that kind of thing, and more.
Downsides: While this is gradually changing, I don't consider server-side Mono production-ready, so you'll be both developing and deploying on Windows. Deploying on Windows may prove expensive, but BizSpark (http://www.crunchbase.com/product/bizspark) will let you avoid that well past the point where you should either be successful or have VC, making it a non-issue. The community isn't as library-happy as the Ruby community, although that's definitely changing; one side-effect of that is that, where Microsoft anticipated your needs, life is beautiful, but where they haven't, things can get painful.
I'd see my previous answer to this question at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3405362 too.
Downsides: While this is gradually changing, I don't consider server-side Mono production-ready, so you'll be both developing and deploying on Windows. Deploying on Windows may prove expensive, but BizSpark (http://www.crunchbase.com/product/bizspark) will let you avoid that well past the point where you should either be successful or have VC, making it a non-issue. The community isn't as library-happy as the Ruby community, although that's definitely changing; one side-effect of that is that, where Microsoft anticipated your needs, life is beautiful, but where they haven't, things can get painful.
I'd see my previous answer to this question at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3405362 too.
> better IDEs if you're into that kind of thing, and more.
With the caveat being you have to be into that kind of thing. Coding C# not-in VS (or MonoDevelop) is not fun.
With the caveat being you have to be into that kind of thing. Coding C# not-in VS (or MonoDevelop) is not fun.
It depends, actually. For stuff I write in my spare time, it's actually perfectly easy to write C# in Emacs and drive the compile with a short waf script instead of a solution. You'll pick up at least some csproj files if you grab packages from NuGet, but it's not horrible to manipulate them in nxml-mode, and again, it's easy to keep all of your own stuff in simple waf files.
The downside of going this route, of course, is that using VS.NET or MonoDevelop can be a bit of a pain. When working on Kiln, I instead do most of the actual editing in Emacs, and use VS.NET as a solution manager/debugger/decompiler. Not ideal, but functional. You'd also have to go that route if you wanted to use Azure, I believe, since I seem to recall they want the solution file, not the assemblies.
The downside of going this route, of course, is that using VS.NET or MonoDevelop can be a bit of a pain. When working on Kiln, I instead do most of the actual editing in Emacs, and use VS.NET as a solution manager/debugger/decompiler. Not ideal, but functional. You'd also have to go that route if you wanted to use Azure, I believe, since I seem to recall they want the solution file, not the assemblies.
If you're on Windows there's always SharpDevelop which pretty decent IMHO.
* C# is statically typed and compiled, which means a lot of problems the would be runtime errors in a Ruby on Rails project will be caught before deployment at compile-time.
* Being compiled also means theres a lower overhead to running C# code - there's no interpreter overhead.
* Anecdotally, many large sites (e.g. Twitter) that used the Rails stack have complained that the technology behind the site caused problems when they grew. Conversely, Stack Overflow, a large site using the ASP.net stack has never complained that C# was a problem in their growth. Correlation not causation, maybe, or perhaps the "Rails doesn't scale" mantra came about for a reason.
* Visual Studio is probably hand down the best IDE out there with good reason - Microsoft is heavily incentivised to keep developers using the Microsoft stack so making it hard or undesirable to abandon their development environment is important for it.
* Being compiled also means theres a lower overhead to running C# code - there's no interpreter overhead.
* Anecdotally, many large sites (e.g. Twitter) that used the Rails stack have complained that the technology behind the site caused problems when they grew. Conversely, Stack Overflow, a large site using the ASP.net stack has never complained that C# was a problem in their growth. Correlation not causation, maybe, or perhaps the "Rails doesn't scale" mantra came about for a reason.
* Visual Studio is probably hand down the best IDE out there with good reason - Microsoft is heavily incentivised to keep developers using the Microsoft stack so making it hard or undesirable to abandon their development environment is important for it.
I can't believe all the .net love lately.
I've not written code on windows for years now, but today for started off with a .NET project - for an course assignment (.NET mandatory). I wasn't that bad - looks things can be completed fast enough here, however kept feeling itchy all the time that finally saying yes to closed source platform ... Came back home and now its open source. Thank you!
I wonder if Phil Haack's exodus was the straw that broke the camels back? Perhaps this was just the leverage Scott Guthurie required to finally get what that team has craved for some time?
It's good to see that it's been released under the Apache License: http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/license
Also they're using Git, which is HN approved :)
[deleted]
this is awesome news for the .Net community.
This is a good sign of things to come. Changes at Microsoft?
Meh.
Way too many Microsoft haters. BE OPEN MINDED. C# is a tool, like computer, as long as used to solve real world problems, who cares who's behind it? It's like how Apple fanboys are saying Object-C is the most awesome programming language in the world, totally biased.
Down voted as expected. Hater, identify yourself or be a coward.
> I am a developer who has leaned towards .NET over the last few projects and one of the things that used to nag me is that the platform is a closed one (and the licensing fees can be a decent part of the cost). I was fairly certain I would migrate off it if the project ever took off seriously.
Can you explain why? Is it because the only reason it's closed? You just hate MS.
Can you explain why? Is it because the only reason it's closed? You just hate MS.
And after seeing the C# love on HN on the poll for favorite programming languages last week, I realized there must be many enamored .NET programmers who would use and evangelize it more but only don't due to it being a closed platform.
Also, a lot of us have great ideas to make the platform we're using better - and with Microsoft announcing they'd make Json.NET, a third party JSON library, the default JSON serializer over their home-grown DataContractJsonSerializer in the next version of ASP.NET MVC, I wondered if Microsoft was considering the unthinkable: start accepting community developed features into their platform, and perhaps open source it to make the scope for community contributions even larger.
There's a long way to go to fully realize this vision (I'd like for .NET itelf to be open source ;-] ), but this is just incredible news.
For those who want to understand which parts of the ASP.NET stack are open source, check out this diagram on Hanselman's blog that was very useful to me.
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/VisualStudio11BetaInContext.as...